Jubilee Institute fox Blind.

Gisborne Times, Volume VI, Issue 252, 1 November 1901, Page 1

Jubilee Institute fox Blind.

THE ENUIRY.

The following is the main evidence for the defence in the enquiry proceeding in Auckland - John William Tighe. principal of the Institute, said he had occupied that position since the Institution was established in ISOO. At tho present moment there were eight men inmates of the institution. The men’s department was a separate building. They had their meals there, and the cooking was done there separately. There were in the school seven boys and eight girls, and there were four women inmates. These were tho regular inmates of the institution. Witness and his wife received £ls n month, Mr Curtis (’foreman) received £75, and taught the men. Miss Law taught the girls and women. He received from the trustees Is a day for each regular inmate and for tho servants. As to what had been said about racehorses being kept, witness had two buggy ponies, which were kept on the domain. There was a little Shetland stallion and a Shetland mare, both of which were regularly on the premises. There was also an old trotting mare. The only racehorses on the premises had been Little Jim, Banshee, and Umeralla. The trustees objected to him keeping racehorses, and he got rid of them some time ago (some 12 months back). AVitness’

second son was trairing for a veterinary surgeon, and it was on bis sou’s behalf that ho kept the horves. Tlie ponies were kept for his children and tho blind children to 'ido. As to the dogs complained of, ho had kept dogs and ferrets for the main object of giving the boys and inmates an interest in outside things. Before the inquiry he had never heard the complaint that the dogs lay on the men’s bods. Two of the dogs had been used for coursing purposes. Tho racehorses were only'ponies that ran at Potter’s Paddock. AVitnoss was not a man of private means.

His Worship : “ What have you to say as to the food supply ? ” Witness said he could only say that he and his wife had done everything possible for the inmates in this direction. The late chairman (Mr Abbott) approved of the present arrangement of witness being paid so much a head for feeding the patients. AVitness had gained nothing by the arrangement; the men’s department had resulted in a loss, while tho children’s department had compensated for this. His AVorship : “ There seems to bo overwhelming evidence that up to a certain point tho food was not satisfactory. AVhat do you say to this ? ” Witness said it was impossible to please five blind men, and other institutions had found it necessary to board inmates out for this reason. It was a peculiar fact that it was very hard to please blind men in tho matter of food, unless they were very intelligent. People who had lost their sight, especially those who had lost it late in life, were suspicious. AVitness was inclined to he so himself.

His Worship pointed out that sighted persons had described the food as bad. He was referring to the time before the trustees’ inquiry. Witness alloged that one of these witnesses was actuated by vindictive motives, while 'Songhurst had, he said, been discharged from, the institution for ill-treating the Jinmates. He was sure there was a great deal of malice in the matter.

His Worship then asked witness what he said as to the charges of insufficient instruction. Witness said when Clark had entered the institution he did not want to learn. He did not refuse to instruct him. 'Witness taught the adults reading and writing and other things, and in the workshops he taught basketmaking, etc. In answer to His Worship .Mr Tighe said the workshop was purely a school of instruction. He thought the men’s principal grievance now was that they were not allowed to live outside the institution, and he thought this was the root of the present trouble.

Mr Mahony pointed out that this matter was now before the trustees.

"Witness pointed out that all the Australian institutions had adopted the system of boarding inmates outside the institutions. He himself thought this was the best plan. His "Worship : “ Then you consiile r blind people hard to please ? ”

Witness said he had taught some 1230 blind people, aud that was his opinion, especially in the matter of food.

His "Worship then brought up the charges of assault brought by McKinley and Lynch against witness. Witness declared he had never administered corporal punishment to a blind girl. When lie had done so to blind boys or men he had done so as a matter of discipline. Grown-up blind men had often only the sense of boys of ten. He had chastised McKinley several years ago with a strap, for disobedience, McKinley not having washed himself when told to do so. He had previously warned McKinley. On the second occasion of his beating McKinley he caned him because he had neglected his duty when distinctly warned not to do so. As to the charge made by Lynch, witness sa id Lynch must have jumped out of bed to avoid witness, and in doing so hurt his knee.

In reply to His "Worship Mr Mahony said there was no regulation restricting the principal in the administration "or corporal punishment.

Witness, continuing, said there was no truth in the allegations that Mrs Tighe had treated the inmates harshly. "Inmates had always been properly treated. The assertion by one inmate (Richmond) that he had to buy his own medicine was false, and he had documents to prove that quantities of medicine had been procured for him. These documents were produced.